← Issue №2/ week of Jul 12, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 5 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 5, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=5,687 · Jul 13, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Computer-aided quality assurance versus standard colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Practice-changingcomputer-aided detectioncolonoscopyadenomaendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider adopting CAQ systems for colonoscopy to improve detection of adenomas and advanced adenomas, given the significant increase in ADR and AADR.
What it foundComputer-aided quality assurance (CAQ) increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) by 43% (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.73) and advanced ADR (AADR) by 54% (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.87) compared to standard colonoscopy, though findings for AADR and adenocarcinoma detection rate (ACDR) should be interpreted with caution due to low event rates.
ContextThis meta-analysis supports the use of CAQ over standard colonoscopy in average-risk patients, refining current practice by demonstrating improved detection rates for clinically significant lesions, with caution advised for interpreting AADR and ACDR due to low event rates.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakethe choice of colonoscopy as the preferred screening modality for colorectal cancer

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Cold KM … Konge L · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · Jul 16, 2026 · Lancet GH · IF 30.9

Artificial intelligence-assisted detection and optical differentiation of colorectal lesions in Lynch syndrome surveillance (CADLY2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecolorectal cancer screeningLynch syndromecomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayConsider using AI-assisted colonoscopy (e.g., CAD EYE) for Lynch syndrome surveillance to improve adenoma detection, particularly in specialized hereditary cancer centers, acknowledging potential bias from unmasked endoscopists.
What it foundAI-assisted colonoscopy (CAD EYE) increased adenoma detection rate to 28% vs 19% with high-definition white-light (HD-WL) colonoscopy alone in Lynch syndrome surveillance.
ContextThis study provides new evidence supporting AI-assisted colonoscopy in Lynch syndrome surveillance, addressing prior sparse and inconsistent data in this high-risk population. Endoscopists were not masked, and safety outcomes were not detailed.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement)

Decision at stakethe use of standard colonoscopy for Lynch syndrome surveillance

… SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. … First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. For serrated polyps: 1-2 SSLs <10 mm, 5-10 years; 3-4 SSLs <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm, 3-5 years; an SSL ≥10 mm, an SSL with dysplasia, or a traditional serrated adenoma, 3 years. When findings are mixed, use the shortest interval indicated. Before applying an interval, confirm complete resection and adequate prep. Piecemeal resections get a site check, and malignant (T1) polyps go to a tumor-board pathway. Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now governed by a separate USMSTF consensus statement (Rex et al., published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Am J Gastroenterol and GIE on 2026-09-30). It has 11 recommendations. Diagnose SPS with the 2019 WHO criteria, which count the size, cumulative lifetime number and location of serrated polyps. Until SPS is diagnosed, record the number, size and location of serrated polyps in every colonoscopy report. SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. Without concurrent CRC, endoscopy is preferred over surgery for primary management. If the polyp burden cannot be managed endoscopically, refer to an advanced endoscopic resection expert before surgery. Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. Do clearance colonoscopy at 3-6 months, then surveil every 1-2 years. Consider 3-year intervals if the burden is greatly reduced at surveillance. First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. SPS has no established genetic basis, so germline testing is recommended only when concurrent non-serrated polyps suggest a heritable syndrome. Lynch, FAP/AFAP and MAP criteria still trigger genetic evaluation.

USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Hüneburg R … CADLY2 investigators · Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 30.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · Jul 14, 2026 · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1

Long term follow-up from the Barrett's esophagus screening trial 3 (BEST3) demonstrates high negative predictive value of capsule-sponge-Trefoil-factor-3 (TFF3) test for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

New evidenceBarrett's esophagusesophageal cancerbiomarkercapsule endoscopy
Clinical takeawayConsider using the capsule-sponge-TFF3 test as a non-invasive screening tool to rule out esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients at risk for Barrett's esophagus (e.g., chronic GERD, male, age >50, white race), particularly when endoscopy is not feasible or preferred.
What it foundThe capsule-sponge-TFF3 test showed a high negative predictive value (NPV) for esophageal adenocarcinoma compared to standard endoscopy, with no cases detected in TFF3-negative patients over long-term follow-up.
ContextThis confirms the utility of the capsule-sponge-TFF3 test as a reliable non-endoscopic screening method, aligning with prior evidence supporting its role in reducing unnecessary endoscopies in select high-risk populations.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakediagnose esophageal cancer by EGD with biopsies

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F), PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H) and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ross-Innes CS … Fitzgerald RC · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=150 · Jul 15, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Advanced and Salvage Techniques for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in ERCP: A Randomized Trial of Outcomes and Efficacy.

New evidenceERCPendoscopy qualitybiliary stricturecomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayFor difficult biliary cannulation (DBC), DGT, TPS, or precut fistulotomy achieve similar final success but differ in pancreatitis risk (lower with DGT) and contrast use (lower with precut). Individualize choice by weighing these tradeoffs against patient anatomy, operator expertise, and local resources.
What it foundInitial cannulation success rates were 72% (DGT), 68% (TPS), and 68% (precut fistulotomy) (p=0.882), with final success reaching 100% in all groups. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 10% (DGT), 22% (TPS), and 24% (precut) (p=0.151); precut required less contrast dye (p<0.005).
ContextThis randomized trial clarifies that DGT, TPS, and precut fistulotomy are similarly efficacious for DBC but differ in safety and resource use, addressing prior uncertainty about their comparative effectiveness.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakethe selection of salvage techniques for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP

… Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Elhoseeny MM … Othman AAA · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Jul 14, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Curriculum on management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Guideline / reviewguidelinehemostasishealth services
Clinical takeawayGI clinicians training endoscopy fellows should implement these ESGE standards: ensure trainees meet preadoption skill benchmarks, provide simulator training, and directly supervise at least 20 UGIB cases with active bleeding. No direct clinical action for patient care: these are training guidelines.
What it foundESGE defines 11 training requirements for managing acute UGIB, including preadoption skills (scope handling, intubation, mucosal examination), simulator training (minimum one half-day session), and supervised procedures (minimum 20 with stigmata of recent hemorrhage).
ContextRefines prior UGIB training by specifying competency-based milestones (e.g., procedural thresholds, simulator use) rather than relying solely on case numbers or subjective assessment.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2021", 2021

Decision at stakethe management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding via endoscopy

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Confirm peptic ulcer disease with EGD, biopsy all gastric ulcers to exclude malignancy, and test every PUD patient for H. pylori. In ulcer bleeding, risk-stratify pre-endoscopy with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS ≤1 may be managed as an outpatient), resuscitate with crystalloid, and transfuse restrictively in hemodynamically stable patients with no history of cardiovascular disease (transfusion threshold hemoglobin ≤7 g/dL, post-transfusion target 7-9 g/dL); in hemodynamically stable patients with a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease use a more liberal strategy (transfusion threshold ≤8 g/dL, post-transfusion target ≥10 g/dL); the restrictive strategy applies only to non-massive bleeding, so in exsanguinating or hemodynamically unstable hemorrhage transfuse based on hemodynamics and ongoing blood loss rather than waiting for a hemoglobin threshold. Perform endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation; emergent (≤6 h) or urgent (≤12 h) endoscopy is NOT recommended unless the patient remains hemodynamically unstable despite adequate resuscitation. Give pre-endoscopy IV erythromycin (IV metoclopramide if erythromycin is unavailable, in clinically severe or ongoing active bleeding); pre-endoscopy high-dose IV PPI may be considered but must not delay endoscopy. Treat by Forrest class: Ia/Ib get combination therapy (dilute epinephrine injection plus a second modality, contact/noncontact thermal or mechanical TTS/OTS clip), with over-the-scope clip monotherapy now an accepted first-line alternative to combination therapy given its lower rate of further bleeding, and hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation a further alternative; IIa (nonbleeding visible vessel) gets thermal, mechanical (TTS or OTS clip), or sclerosant injection as monotherapy or combined with epinephrine; IIb (adherent clot) gets clot removal with treatment of underlying stigmata where the endoscopist is technically competent to manage conversion to a higher-risk lesion; IIc/III (flat spot, clean base) get no endoscopic therapy and may be discharged early on oral PPI. Epinephrine injection must never be used as monotherapy, and topical hemostatic agents must not be used as first-line monotherapy (they are reserved, with OTS clips, for bleeding refractory to standard modalities). After hemostasis, give high-dose PPI as 80 mg IV bolus then 8 mg/h infusion for 72 hours (twice-daily IV bolus or twice-daily oral high-dose PPI are acceptable alternatives); the same applies to untreated FIIb clot. Routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended. For recurrent bleeding, repeat endoscopy and consider an OTS clip if not already used; if the second attempt fails, proceed to transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE), with surgery when TAE is unavailable or unsuccessful. Prophylactic TAE may be considered in selected high-risk cases (hemodynamic instability at presentation, posterior duodenal wall ulcer, ulcer >2 cm, or uncertain durability of hemostasis). Start clear liquids/early oral nutrition within 24 hours of durable hemostasis, and initiate iron therapy before discharge for iron deficiency and/or anemia. Resume anticoagulation as soon as clinically indicated based on thromboembolic risk, resume aspirin for secondary prevention within 24 hours, and give PPI co-therapy to patients continuing DAPT or anticoagulation after a bleed. Test for H. pylori at the index endoscopy and treat if positive; retest patients testing negative acutely (a false-negative is common in the bleeding setting), holding PPI at least 2 weeks before retesting, and document successful eradication in every treated patient. For eradication, first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with unknown susceptibility is optimized bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days (PPI twice daily, tetracycline 500 mg four times daily, metronidazole 500 mg three to four times daily, bismuth four times daily); rifabutin triple therapy or vonoprazan-amoxicillin dual therapy for 14 days are acceptable empiric alternatives in patients without penicillin allergy. PPI-clarithromycin triple therapy and levofloxacin-based regimens are recommended against unless susceptibility testing proves the organism is sensitive. Salvage therapy in treatment-experienced patients is optimized bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days if not previously used, otherwise a susceptibility-guided or non-cross-resistant regimen. Test of cure is required in ALL treated patients by urea breath test, fecal antigen, or biopsy-based test at least 4 weeks after completing antibiotics and at least 2 weeks off PPI. Heal ulcers with PPI (duodenal ulcer 4 weeks, gastric ulcer 8 weeks, with repeat EGD at 8-12 weeks to confirm healing and exclude malignancy), discontinue or mitigate NSAIDs with long-term PPI or PCAB co-therapy if NSAIDs must continue, maintain long-term acid suppression in idiopathic (H. pylori-negative, NSAID-negative) ulcers, and pursue gastrinoma/ZES or refractory-ulcer workup in H. pylori-negative/NSAID-negative or non-healing cases.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2021", 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Voiosu AM … Gralnek IM · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №2 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS